AngelOfLight

[quote name='BrJLa' timestamp='1338914602' post='2977574'] Here's my nation link: http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000706 Before I got nuked I had 34 aircraft (8 Level 8 Fighters; 22 Level 7 Fighters; 1 Level 8 Bomber; 3 Level 7 Bombers). I had a fallout shelter. I got nuked. The nuke message says I only lost 50% of my aircraft, but I only have 8 left (2 Level 8 Fighters; 6 Level 7 Fighters). [/quote] Maybe someone hit you with a dogfight after nuking you?

[quote name='Sakura' timestamp='1301391385' post='2679812'] My second anniversary was back in November, and nope, no bonus. There aren't any beyond turning one. [/quote] Thanks. That answers my question.

Today is my nation's second birthday and I don't see a birthday bonus. Doest he bithday happiness bonus stop after a nation's first birthday or does it repeat every year?

I, AngelOfLight, hereby surrender to Umbrella and Doomhouse. As specified in the surrender terms offered by Umbrella, I am hereby leaving my previous alliance and have joined the Doomhouse POW alliance as a prisoner of war. I have decommisioned all barracks and guerilla camps. I have also decommisioned all extra sattelites and missile defenses except the minimum 3 of each that are required to sustain an SDI wonder. I have decommisioned all tanks, cruise missiles, aircraft and ships. I have also reduced my soldier level to peacetime levels. I am awaiting a response from Medicjoe95 (from Umbrella) as to whether nuclear weapons need to be decommisioned as well. I also agree that I will not financially, militarily or strategically support any of the participants in this conflict involving Pandora's box.

What I see happening here is that most of the guys from MK just rage and spew venom without making any effort to justify why the feel we broke the terms. That apart, these surrender terms DID NOT INVOLVE MK, so MK cannot claim to hold CD responsible for violating these terms. These terms were signed in conjunction with MHA and others, and thereforei t is only THEY who can concur or differ on whether or not it constitutes a breach of terms. If I have an agreement with a firend tomorrow and another third person comes along and threatens dire consequences saying I broke the agreement, then he's not justified in making that decision. As long as the two original partners in the agreement have not mutually agreed that there has been a breach, the third party is not part of the agreement at all. If MK seriously wants to resolve this dispute through dialogue instead of threatening consequences without attempting to sit and talk like mature adults (or mature children in the case of some), then initiate a diplomatic dialogue involving MHA and CD and discuss this in a civil manner. It takes little to pull a trigger to fire a gun. It takes a lot of maturity and sense to talk open mindedly and hold back on the trigger until diplomacy has taken it's full course. If MK just pounds its fists and rants and raves, they will be looked upon as the NPO of 2011, regardless of how well they win. MHA is way stronger thank MK, but their alliance members are still so polite and civil to talk to. They gain respect, even from their enemies, because their behaviour is admirable and their gaming spirit is something we can all learn to respect. They don't rant, rave and threaten dire consequencies. They're the single-most powerful alliance in the game and yet remain polite and courteous, which is more than what I can see happening in this thread with the MK members. Remember, this is a game, and to be so angry and vengeful over a simple browser-based game shows that you take this way too seriously. If you seriously want CD to believe they have broken the terms, then initiate a discussion between MHA and CD and talk things through. You can't convince someone they're wrong by putting a gun to their heads. You need to have patience and maturity to debate your point of view in a diplomatic and civil fashion. DISCLAIMER: These are my personal views and do not represent the views of any alliance, including my own.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299486828' post='2655266'] Added as an afterthought? Yes it would be obvious anyway, but it makes more sense for it to mean that than to mean something which directly contradicts what comes before it. [/quote] In wars fought on CN, we have a set of widely accepted rules. Surrender terms, for example, are one of the rules we would like everyone to abide by. Just as you would like to see CD abide by the rules of surrender, other alliances too would really like to see MK abide by another commonly accepted rule on CN - Declarations of War. The purpose of a DoW is to publicly inform the cyberverse of the purpose of a war, serving both as an official recognition of conflict as well as a CB. The reason a DoW is important (and even more so in this case), is because of the second half of the above sentence - the part about the CB. If the rules had been followed properly, then MK would have clearly stated in its CB that the attack on NSO was due to its role in the current conflict. Unfortunately, there was no clear CB stating that this was part of the larger war. I'm not denying that there's a good possibility that MK's intentions were to attack based on the sides in this global war. However, the rules of war in CN ask that you specify your CB, else the war just counts as little more than another tech raid or rogue attack. So MK's intention could possibly have been related to this war, but it is unable to claim this because it did not follow the rules itself by making it clear in its CB. It is the failure to comply with this rule regarding CBs that makes it possible for CD to claim that the attack on NSO was not in relation to the conflict. Moreover, CD's surrender terms clearly had a clause that, in no uncertain terms, stated that it is allowed to defend its allies so long as the DoW or equivalent against its allies has been made AFTER signing the treaty. Since this was clearly the case, we can assume that even if CD were to take MK's word about this being related to the current war (which it doesn't have to due to the lack of its mention in the form of a CB/DoW), CD would still be entitled to defend its allies. It's a part of the surrender terms as they were accepted by both sides. It's all right if MK doesn't agree that these terms should have been allowed, but now that they have been allowed, CD is entitled to claim them legitimately. It's not a violation if the surrender terms explicitly provide a clause that allows this to happen.

Hey! I have Uranium and Water. Count me in and let's finish the circle! Please let me know when you're ready so I can switch to the blue team before you offer me a trade. Remember, there's no team bonus unless we're both on the blue team before the trade is offered. Drop me an in-game message if you can. Here's my nation link: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=315775 Let's do this guys!